The rationality that doesn’t secure your wish isn’t the true rationality.
Winning has no fixed form. You’ll do whatever is needed to succeed, however original or far fetched it would sound. How it sounds is irrelevant, how it works is the crux.
And If at first what you tried didn’t work, then you’ll learn, adapt, and try again, making no pause for excuses, if you merely want to succeed, you’ll be firm as a rock, relentless in your attempts to find the path to success.
And if your winning didn’t go as smoothly or well as you wanted or thought it should, in general, then learn, adapt, and try again. Think outside of the box, self recurse on winning itself. Eventually, you should refine and precise your methods into a tree, from general to specialized.
That tree will have a trunk of general cases and methods used to solve those, and any case that lies ahead, upwards on the tree; and the higher you go, the more specialized the method, the rarer the case it solves. The tree isn’t fixed either, it can and will grow and change.
Re: The rationality that doesn’t secure your wish isn’t the true rationality.
Again with the example of handicap chess. You start with no knight. You wish to win. Actually you lose. Does that mean you were behaving irrationally? No, of course not! It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
I am wondering, if this difference makes a difference.
“Rationality” is of course a nominalisation—you can’t put it in a wheelbarrow—so it is an abstraction that can mean many things. “Rationalists” are more concrete.
However the activity of rationality is dependent on a carrier (the rationalist). No carrier, no rationality. The activity of rationality is messy, uncertain and fumbling. Would non-human carriers of rationality be less messy?. Maybe they would be quicker and the quickness would disguise the messiness. Maybe they would turn down fewer blind alleys, but surely they are as blind as us.
Thus I do not see a difference that makes a difference.
The rationality that doesn’t secure your wish isn’t the true rationality.
Winning has no fixed form. You’ll do whatever is needed to succeed, however original or far fetched it would sound. How it sounds is irrelevant, how it works is the crux.
And If at first what you tried didn’t work, then you’ll learn, adapt, and try again, making no pause for excuses, if you merely want to succeed, you’ll be firm as a rock, relentless in your attempts to find the path to success.
And if your winning didn’t go as smoothly or well as you wanted or thought it should, in general, then learn, adapt, and try again. Think outside of the box, self recurse on winning itself. Eventually, you should refine and precise your methods into a tree, from general to specialized.
That tree will have a trunk of general cases and methods used to solve those, and any case that lies ahead, upwards on the tree; and the higher you go, the more specialized the method, the rarer the case it solves. The tree isn’t fixed either, it can and will grow and change.
Re: The rationality that doesn’t secure your wish isn’t the true rationality.
Again with the example of handicap chess. You start with no knight. You wish to win. Actually you lose. Does that mean you were behaving irrationally? No, of course not! It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
Yes!
Rationality is Messy, Uncertain and Fumbling.
The explanation afterwards looks Neat, Certain and Cut ’n Dried.
Say “Rationalists are” instead of “Rationality is” and I’ll agree with that.
I am wondering, if this difference makes a difference.
“Rationality” is of course a nominalisation—you can’t put it in a wheelbarrow—so it is an abstraction that can mean many things. “Rationalists” are more concrete.
However the activity of rationality is dependent on a carrier (the rationalist). No carrier, no rationality. The activity of rationality is messy, uncertain and fumbling. Would non-human carriers of rationality be less messy?. Maybe they would be quicker and the quickness would disguise the messiness. Maybe they would turn down fewer blind alleys, but surely they are as blind as us.
Thus I do not see a difference that makes a difference.